Posts

Practice - Vimage Products Ltd v Data Candy Ltd

Image
© 2021 Jane Lambert: All rights reserved Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr John Kimbell QC)   Vimage Products Ltd. v Data Candy Ltd and others   [2022] EWHC 606 (IOEC) (18 March 2022_ Sometimes, through no fault of its own, a claimant joins someone who was not responsible for the alleged wrongdoing as a defendant.    That is what appears to have happened in  Vimage Products Ltd v Data Candy Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 606 (IPEC) when Vimage Products Ltd. sued Data Candy Ltd and its director, Joanne Roper, as defendants to an action for design right infringement and passing off.  Vimage joined them as defendants because they appeared to be the owners of a website that advertised allegedly infringing articles. In their defence, the defendants denied infringement and identified Lenken Ltd. as the owner of the website.  Vimage and Lenken tried unsuccessfully to resolve their dispute without recourse to litigation.  Vimage applied to: join Lenken and its director Sam Po

Entitlement Proceedings - Jones v Irmac Roads Ltd

Image
Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Jones v Irmac  Roads ltd [2022[  EEHC 495 (IPEC) 8 March 2022 This was an entitlement action under s.37 of the Patents Act 1977 .  The claimant, Mark Jones, sought a declaration that he was the sole proprietor of UK Patent No. 2 506 097 for an infra-red road asphalt heater.  I discussed such actions in  Disputes over Ownership of Inventions   in IP Southeast on 5 Aug 2015.  This case was unusual in that it took place in front of Judge Hacon and not a hearing officer on behalf of the Comptroller and the trial took place outside London. The infra-red road asphalt heater was invented by Mr Jones.  On 20 June 2012, a director of the defendant company applied for the patent naming himself and Mr Jones as the inventors without the knowledge of Mr Jones.  The application was granted on 13 Sept 2017.  The company claimed that it was entitled to the patent by virtue of a series of agreements made on 22 Dec 2011 whereby Mr Jon

Registered Designs - ASR Interiors Ltd v AWS Trading Ltd.

Image
  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Recorder Campbsell QC)  ASR Interiors Ltd v AWS Trading Ltd   [2022] EWHC 372 (IPEC) (24 Feb 2022) This was an action for the infringement of the following registered designs and a counterclaim for declarations that those registrations were invalid: Design number 6050903 for a Crushed Diamond Mirrored Sideboard; Design number  6050906  for Articles of adornment; and  Design number 6051281 for a Dining Chair. The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Recorder Campbell  QC on 13 Jan 2022.  in para [80] of his judgment in  ASR Interiors Ltd v AWS Trading Lt d,  [2022] EWHC 372 which he delivered on 24 Feb 2022, the learned recorder found for the claimant on the claim and dismissed the counterclaim. The Claim The claimant was the proprietor of the above-mentioned design registrations.  It alleged that the defendant had infringed those registrations by marketing and distributing the following products: The Defence The defendan

Appeal - Nokia Technologies and another v Oneplus Technologies and others

Image
Great Hall of the People Chongqing Author flyerletian Licence  CCO 1.0   Soutce Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Peter Jackson, Arnold and Phillips) Nokia Technologies OY and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd and others [2022] EWCA Civ 947 (11 July 2022) This was an appeal from the judgment of HH Judge Hacon sitting as a judge of the High Court in  Nokia Technologies OY and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and other s (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 2952 (Pat) (4 Nov 2021) which I discussed in  FRAND - Nokia Technologies v Oneplus Technology   on 25 April 2022.  Readers will recall that the learned judge refused an application to set aside service of patent infringement proceedings on defendants that had been incorporated in China and to stay the action against the defendants that had been incorporated here to abide the outcome of proceedings in China to determine the terms of a FRAND licence for the claimants' patent portfolio on the

Colour Marks: Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK

Image
Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Measd) Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 1671 (Ch) (5 July 2022) This was an appeal from Louise White's decision in The Colour Purple, Société des Produits Nestlé  SA v Cadbury UK Ltd, BL O/198/19 of 12 April 2019. The hearing officer had heard oppositions by Société des Produits Nestlé ("Nestlé") to the following trade mark applications by Cadbury UK Ltd. ("Cadbury"): Application No 3 019 362 Application No 3 019 361 , and  Application No 3 025 822 . She found for the opponent in respect of application numbers3025822 and 3019361 but not application number 3019362. Cadbury appealed against her decision on 025822 and 3019361. Before the appeal could be heard. Cadbury settled its differences with Nestlé.  The Registrar of Trade Marks considered that the appeal gave rise to important issues where the law was uncertain and sought to intervene in the proceedings.  Permission to do son was granted

Patent Amendment - Tehrani v Bonaduz AR

Image
  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Jacon)  Tehrani v Bonaduz AR and others [2022] EWHC 1031 (IPEC) (18 Feb 2022) S.75 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides: "In any proceedings before the court or the comptroller in which the validity of a patent may be put in issue the court or, as the case may be, the comptroller may, subject to section 76 below, allow the proprietor of the patent to amend the specification of the patent in such manner, and subject to such terms as to advertising the proposed amendment and as to costs, expenses or otherwise, as the court or comptroller thinks fit." In  Tehrani v Bonaduz AR and others [2022] EWHC 1031 (IPEC) (18 Feb 2022),  the patentee sought to change the words "for a next breath of the patient" to "for the next breath of the patient" in one of the claims and consequential amendments of the body of the specification.  The problem with the application is that it was sought after the court

Trade Marks: The Tomatin Distillery Co. Ltd. v The Tomatin Trading Co. Ltd.

Image
The Railway Viaduct at Tomatin Author Chris McKenna   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Session, Inner House (Lord President, Lord Woolman and Lord Pentland) The Tomatin Distillery Co. Ltd. v The Tomatin Trading Co. Ltd .  [2022] ScotCS CSIH_28 (14 June 2022) This was an appeal from the decision of the Scottish Intellectual Property Judge, Lady Wolffe, in The Tomatin Distillery Co. Ltd. v The Tomatin Trading Co. Ltd. [2021] ScotCS CSOH_100, 2021 SLT 1327, [2021] CSOH 100, 2021 GWD 33-438 (6 Oct 2021).  The pursuer, a whisky distiller in the village of  Tomatin , had sued the defender , which runs an hotel, café and farm shop in the same village, for trade mark infringement and passing off.  The defender denied infringement and counterclaimed for the invalidity of the pursuer's marks.  Her ladyship dismissed the claim and declared that two of the pursuer's trade marks were invalid on the ground inter alia that those marks had been registe